[theseoafs]

> Except you can bound it, and you can escape it that way. IE "not gotten anywhere after 30 iterations, so don't know".

It should go without saying that this system is not Turing-complete anymore if you bound the runtime.

[oculusthrift]

that is correct. the whole point is we can make practical real world tradeoffs and break out of the shackles of theoretical constraints.

[UncleMeat]

But you aren't bounding the runtime of the thing. You are bounding the runtime of your abstract interpreter of the thing.

[DannyBee]

As someone points out, no system we use is really turing complete, since no system has truly infinite memory.

In most systems with finite memory, the halting problem is solvable anyway.

(this includes linear bounded automatons and deterministic/non-deterministic machines with finite memory).

It's just going to take a long ass time.

[Klockan]

This is like saying that no programming language is Turing-complete since they are all implemented with finite memory.